2014 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER MONITORING REPORT …...CAHFS California Animal Health and Food Safety...

Post Office Box 730 Guadalupe, California 93434 805-343-0751 Fax 805-343-0591

2014 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER MONITORING REPORT GUADALUPE RESTORATION PROJECT

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for: CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

and the UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Recovery Permit TE-211100-0

January 2015

January 2015 Project No. 0901-2195

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………… ES1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 SURVEY AREA .................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 METHODS .........................................................................................................................10

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................12

4.1 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NUMBERS ....................................................................12

4.2 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NESTS ..........................................................................14

4.3 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NEST DEPREDATION AND FAILURE ..........................17

4.4 NEST EXCLOSURES ...................................................................................................19 4.5 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER EGGS AND CHICKS .....................................................20

4.6 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NESTING WITHIN NEWLY RESTORED BEACH

EXCAVATION SITES ....................................................................................................20

4.7 TRESSPASS INCIDENTS WITHIN WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER HABITAT ...............21

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................22

5.1 MONITORING STUDY CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................22

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................22

6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................24

TABLES

4-1 2014 Breeding Season Western Snowy Plover Nest Fates at GRP ................. ………. 10

4-2 Western Snowy Plover Nest Failure at GRP in 2014 ....................................... ……….. 14

FIGURES

1 Site Location Map ............................................................................................ …………. 3

2 Field Map ........................................................................................................ ………… 4

3 Western Snowy Plover Nest Locations (2014) ................................................. ………… 5

4 Western Snowy Plovers Observed per Month at GRP in 2014 ........................ ………… 8

5 Number of Western Snowy Plover Nests at GRP in 2014 ................................ …………. 9

6 Fate of Western Snowy Plover Nests at GRP in 2014 ..................................... ……….. 10

7 Number of Nests Located and Hatched between 1995 - 2014 at GRP ............ ……….. 11

8 Total Western Snowy Plover Nests by Location at GRP in 2014 ..................... ……….. 12


- ii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

APPENDIX A

A-1 Survey Dates and Western Snowy Plover Numbers in 2014 ........................... ………. A1

A-2 Color Banded Western Snowy Plovers Recorded in 2014 ............................... ………. A4

A-3 Western Snowy Plover Nests Located in 2014……………………….. .............. ……….. A6

A-4 Predator Sightings and Other Possible Threats During Western Snowy Plover

Surveys in 2014 ............................................................................................... ……….. A8

APPENDIX B

CAHFS Necropsy Final Report……………………………………………. ...................... B1


- iii -

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AB Alyssa Berry (Padre Associates, Inc.)

CAHFS California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory

CCC California Coastal Commission

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CEMC Chevron Environmental Management Company

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CDP Coastal Development Permit

EL Eva von Thury (Padre Associates, Inc.)

FESA Federal Endangered Species Act

GRP Guadalupe Restoration Project (Site or Project)

JK Jennifer Klaib (Padre Associates, Inc.)

JM Jeanette Moore (Padre Associates, Inc.)

JL Jennifer Langford (Padre Associates, Inc.)

KLG Kenneth Gilliland (Padre Associates, Inc.)

KW Ken Wimer (Padre Associates, Inc.)

KKP Kimberly Paradis (Padre Associates, Inc.)

MH Michaela Hoffman (Padre Associates, Inc.)

ODSVRA Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area

RD Rosalino Dolorez (Padre Associates, Inc.)

RZ Ryan Zukor (Padre Associates, Inc.)

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SBMNH Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History

SS Stephanie Seay (Padre Associates, Inc.)

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (or Service)

USCG United States Coast Guard

VAFB Vandenberg Air Force Base

WSPL Western snowy plover


- ES1 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Padre biologists who perform the western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus)

(WSPL) surveys are permitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to

independently survey for the WSPL as permitee or subpermitees under a USFWS Recovery

Permit 10(a)(1)(A) TE-211100-0 and a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The USFWS requires the submittal of an annual report

to the Recovery Permit Coordinator at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Service following each year

the USFWS Recovery Permit is in effect. The County of San Luis Obispo administered the

Conditions of Approval for the Guadalupe Restoration Project (GRP). Section F.62.m, requires

a field-wide management plan for each sensitive species that is potentially impacted by site

characterization, oil spill remediation, oil field abandonment, infrastructure removal, or other

Project-related activities. As part of the field-wide Sensitive Species Management Plan, the

WSPL Monitoring Program requires a written report summarizing the data collected to be

submitted to Chevron Environmental Management Company (Chevron).

Monitoring of breeding WSPL was conducted at the Chevron Guadalupe Restoration

Project (GRP) from March 3, 2014 to September 15, 2014. WSPL were present during all 85

surveys conducted during this reporting period. In 2014, an average of 15 birds were observed

each day during the peak breeding months from April through June. A total of 50 nests were

initiated in 2014. WSPL nests were present on the beach from March 21, 2014 through August

11, 2014. Of these 50 nests, 22 nests hatched successfully, 25 failed (with known fates), and

three had unknown fates. WSPL placed 22 nests on previously restored dunes, four of these

nests being located in the 7X/A-6 area that was restored in 2013. Ten (45 percent) of those

nests placed in the restored dunes successfully hatched eggs (refer to Figure 8 - Total Snowy

Plover Nests by Location). The overall hatching success at GRP stayed consistent with 44

percent success rates in both 2013 and 2014.

In the first quarter of 2014, a total of 1.28 acres of WSPL critical habitat was disturbed

and restored at the A-8 Pad, A-6 West, and the A Road. Historically, the A-8 Area has not had

suitable WSPL nesting habitat and nests have not been found in that area. Following excavation

activities of these sites, restoration efforts included seeding and installation of sand fence for

sand stabilization. Additionally, straw plugs were added to A-6 West and the A Road.

Predators depredated 16 of the 25 nests that failed to hatch. In 2014, coyotes (Canis

latrans) were the most significant nest predator and were confirmed to have depredated six

nests. Raccoon (Procyon lotor), feral pig (Sus scrofa), common raven (Corvus corax), and an

unknown avian predator each depredated a single nest. Unknown predators depredated six

nests. Due to the high winds after the nests were depredated, no predator tracks could be

identified. Of the remaining failed nests, nine were abandoned, five of which were abandoned

during high wind events. Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) were present on the beach

intermittently throughout the season; however, predation of adults, chicks, and fledglings by this

species was not observed. Nest exclosures were not placed on the beach during the 2014

season. The decision was made by the biologist not to use predator exclosures based on adult

WSPL fatalities possibly associated with the exclosures recorded in previous years. The lack of

exclosure utilization reduced the risk of coyotes being attracted to the exclosed nests and

attempting to dig under the exclosures as they have been observed during previous years. In


- ES2 -

2014, no adult fatalities were observed due to predators, and no chick or fledgling fatalities were

observed.

In the portion of the Restoration Dunes referred to as the 5X Beach Area, Chevron

contractors, under the direction of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USFWS,

United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),

continued to conduct 5X beach monitoring to monitor the potential release of petroleum

hydrocarbons into the ocean that was observed in 2010. WSPL did not show any signs of

stress from the additional personnel on the beach.


- ES3 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre) has prepared this report to document the results of

western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) (WSPL) surveys and monitoring events

conducted during the 2014 breeding season at the Guadalupe Restoration Project (GRP), San

Luis Obispo County, California (Project Site). Refer to Figure 1 - Site Location Map. The WSPL

species is listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). In

accordance with the terms and conditions of the GRP specific Biological Opinion (1-8-03-F/C-

57) issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), monitoring of WSPL

activities were conducted three times per week during the period from March 3, 2014 through

September 15, 2014. The biologists who performed the surveys are permitted by the USFWS

to independently survey the WSPL under a USFWS Recovery Permit 10(a)(1)(A) TE-211100-0

and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).


- ES4 -

2.0 SURVEY AREA

The WSPL survey area includes the entire coastal area that forms the western edge of

the Project Site. Refer to Figure 2 - Field Map. The eastern boundary of the survey area can

be divided into two parts. The southern portion of the eastern boundary is defined by the

location of the former A Road, that was once a gravel road running parallel with the beach

approximately 1,000 feet (300 meters) inland from the ocean. Refer to Figure 3 - Western

Snowy Plover Nest Locations (2014). This road has been removed and restoration in this area

is being performed. North of the former A Road, the eastern survey boundary is at the crest of

high dunes backing the beach. The western border of the survey area is roughly the mean high

tide line along the Pacific Ocean. The survey areas northern border is where GRP property

meets the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge. The southern border of the

survey area lies on a sandspit created by the Santa Maria River. In prior years, the river has

crossed near the GRP property line; however, in 2014, it was approximately 500 feet (152

meters) south of the property boundary. The length of the survey area from the northern to

southern boundary is nearly 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) and the survey area covers

approximately 97 acres (39 hectares).

The survey area is divided into five monitoring territories which are from North to South:

1) Northern Territory; 2) 7X Complex; 3) A Road; 4) Restoration Dunes; and 5) Sandspit. Refer

to Figure 3 - Western Snowy Plover Nest Locations (2014).,

Habitat types within the survey area include beach, foredune, and vegetated back dunes

interspersed with sandy or rocky open areas. The beach is scattered with driftwood of various

sizes, kelp, wrack, and some man-made debris. During winter storms, the Santa Maria River

occasionally discharges various types of natural and anthropogenic debris down the river and

onto the beach resulting in increased camouflage from predators for WSPL nests. The beach

received a significant amount of wrack (surf-cast kelp) throughout the nesting season resulting

in suitable foraging and nesting habitat. The beach width varies throughout the year, generally

being narrowest in late winter and building throughout the summer. In addition, the southern

half of the beach is generally broader than the northern half of the beach.

The foredunes support sparse vegetation consisting of beach-bur (Ambrosia

chamissonis), yellow sand verbena (Abronia latifolia), and sea rocket (Cakile maritima). The

foredunes also provide habitat for the beach spectacle pod (Dithyrea maritima) and surf thistle

(Cirsium rhothophilum), both listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act

(CESA).

Remediation of the foredune habitat, an area now covered by roughly 24 dunes, was

completed in 2001 and was approved and signed off in 2014 by the California Coastal

Commission (CCC) and San Luis Obispo County indicating that these areas meet the

established restoration performance criteria. This area is now commonly referred to as the

“Restoration Dunes”. Restoration activities will continue until the area meets the restoration

performance criteria set by the County and CCC. The beach and foredunes, including restored

areas, provide suitable and occupied habitat for nesting WSPL along their entire length.


- ES5 -


- ES6 -


- ES7 -


- ES8 -


- ES9 -


- ES10 -

3.0 METHODS

USFWS-approved biologists surveyed all potential WSPL habitat within the survey area

three times per week on non-consecutive days, when possible. Surveys were cancelled or

rescheduled, when wind speeds greater than 15 to 20 miles per hour (mph) were observed.

During each survey, the biologists followed a designated route through the survey area.

Beginning at the intersection of the former A Road and the B Road, the biologists walked the

former A Road south to where the road turns to the southeast (refer to Figure 3). At this point,

the route followed the estuary edge traveling west until reaching the southwest corner of the

GRP property. From there, the biologists proceeded to the northern boundary of the survey

area. Returning south from the northern boundary, the former 8X Pad area was surveyed. The

biologists then walked south along the western edge of the dunes to the former 7X Road and

returned to the intersection of the A Road and B Road. At least once a week the survey route

was traveled in reverse. The biologists would routinely take minor deviations from this route to

follow tracks or other evidence of WSPL activity. To avoid disturbing rare plant species, every

monitor was trained in special-status plant identification and was careful to avoid affecting them

when surveying in the dunes.

Surveys were conducted by traveling the survey route with biologists stopping at roughly

325-foot (100 meter) intervals, scanning a 360 degree circle for WSPL, and noting the number,

age, sex, and presence of colored leg identification bands of all observed WSPL. When a

WSPL was observed with colored leg identification bands, extra effort was made to record the

band combinations. As WSPL tend to visit their nests several times a day during nest initiation

and egg-laying stages, scanning areas with dense concentrations of WSPL footprints was the

primary technique used to locate active WSPL nests. Nests were also located opportunistically

or by observing the behavior of adult WSPL.

During each survey, the status of every active nest was checked and assigned to one of

the following categories:

Active/Tended - Eggs present, with adults or fresh tracks near the nest;

Untended/Abandoned - Eggs present, but no fresh tracks near the nest. Eggs partially covered in sand or present more than five days after expected hatch date;

Hatched - Chicks or egg pips (small fragments of eggshell produced during hatching) present in nest. In the absence of pips, due to wind, nests that were empty on the expected hatch date without any signs of depredation;

Failed - Eggs gone before expected hatch date, or physical evidence of egg loss present (e.g. broken shells, spilled yolk in nest scrape, evidence of predator presence); and

Unknown - This category was assigned to nests that did not leave unequivocal clues to their fate.

The nest status, data, and the location of the nest (GPS coordinates) were collected

during each survey and written on a nest card that was used to monitor each individual nest.

The location data were placed on a map indicating the success of each nest based on color


- ES11 -

(refer to Figure 3). Any predators or predator tracks that were observed during each survey

along with human trespassers were was also recorded. The time of the survey; biologists

present; weather (wind speed and temperature); prior weather; visibility: estuary height; surf

conditions; and presence of fisherman, beachcombers, surfers, and joggers was also recorded.

All of these data were collected in field notebooks and input into an electronic database. The

color combinations of each unique colored leg identification bands were reported to Point Blue

Conservation Science, which apprised the USFWS approved biologists that banded these birds

of these observations. Reporting of WSPL colored leg identification bands observations help

biologists understand the range-wide status, movements, and distribution of the species.

Additional WSPL monitoring was conducted during the monitoring of the 5X Area for

evidence of potential hydrocarbon releases into the ocean. Two separate paths were

designated depending on where nests were located during the time of beach monitoring

activities. One path was from the former A Road to 7X Area and out to the shoreline. The

second path was south on the A Road to an open dune near 5X Area and out to the shoreline.

The paths were surveyed by an approved WSPL monitor prior to any hydrocarbon monitoring

activities. Additionally, approved WSPL biologists accompanied all monitoring personnel during

each monitoring event.

Periodically, site activities required a search for WSPL scrapes or nests outside the

normal survey zone. If a proposed project would disturb an area west of the A Road, but

outside the normally surveyed section or east of the former A Road in an area that had any

likelihood of sheltering a WSPL nest, the WSPL monitor would be called upon to survey the

area for WSPL prior to the initiation of remediation activities. The area east of the B-ponds are

surveyed and cleared for foot and ORV traffic once a week. WSPL have not been seen in this

area for the past few years and the vegetation continues to grow, decreasing the availability of

suitable nesting habitat.


- ES12 -

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NUMBERS

The WSPL biologists conducted 85 surveys during the period from March 3, 2014, to

September 15, 2014. The survey data are provided in Appendix A, Table A-1, Survey Dates

and Western Snowy Plover Numbers. The number of WSPL counted each month ranged from

a minimum of zero observed on August 14, 2014, to a maximum of 37 observed on May 20,

2014. The number of observations are presented on Figure 4 - Western Snowy Plovers

Observed per Month in 2014 at GRP, which depicts the minimum, average, and maximum

number of WSPL observed each respective month in 2014. An average of 15 WSPL were

observed at the GRP during the peak breeding months of April through June.

The average number of WSPL observed during the period from March through

September is consistent with the average number of WSPL observed over the past five years

during the same period. The average number of WSPL observed in 2013 (n=16) is the same as

2012 (n=16), and slightly higher than 2011 (n=15), 2010 (n=12), and 2009 (n=15). The increase

in WSPL numbers observed in May is presumed to be due to the WSPL still moving between

suitable nesting areas throughout the region before choosing a location to begin the nesting

cycle.

Among the WSPL observed in 2014, 49 individuals were marked with colored

identification leg bands placed on the birds by different monitoring sites throughout the WSPL

breeding range. Refer to Appendix A, Table A-2, Color Banded Western Snowy Plovers

Recorded. Seven of these banded birds were confirmed as nesting on-site throughout the

season. Thirty-one of the 49 banded WSPL wore band combinations placed on the chicks by

Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Restoration Area (ODSVRA), located to the north of the Project

Site. It should be noted that eight of the 31 ODSVRA birds were banded in 2014.

On the morning of September 8, 2014, at 0930 an adult WSPL was located dead on the

side of the Main Road at Project Site. The Main Road runs west to east and the location where

the bird was found was towards the west side of the Project Site closer to the beach. The bird

was located on the road, approximately three feet from the southern edge of the road. Overhead

power lines are located on the northern edge of the road. There was little traffic on the road that

morning. The bird showed no signs of trauma when collected by the WSPL monitor. Padre

immediately notified the USFWS of the deceased WSPL and it was recommended that a

necropsy be performed to help understand the cause of death. The WSPL was sent to an

approved facility, the California Health and Food Safety Laboratory at the University of

California, Davis (CAHFS). The findings from the necropsy were inconclusive. The results of

the necropsy are detailed in the final report from the laboratory (refer to Appendix B – CAHFS

Necropsy Final Report, title).


- ES13 -

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept

Figure 4. Western Snowy Plovers Observed per Month at GRP in 2014

Low

Average

High


- ES14 -

4.2 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NESTS

The biologists located a total of 50 WSPL nests within the survey area during the 2014

breeding season. Refer to Figure 3. The number of nests recorded in 2014 is greater than the

45 nests found in 2013. The first nest was observed on March 21, 2014, and the last nest

hatched on August 8, 2014. The nest location data are presented in Appendix A, Table A-3,

Western Snowy Plover Nests Located. April and July were the most active nesting months. Of

the 50 nests observed, 22 hatched, 25 failed, and three nests had unknown fates. Sixteen of

the failed nests were confirmed depredations. Nine nests were abandoned and no nests were

washed away by high tides in 2014. Refer to Figure 5 - Number of Western Snowy Plover

Nests at GRP in 2014 and Figure 6 - Fate of Western Snowy Plover Nests at GRP in 2014.

A total of 37 nests (74 percent) were located before clutch completion (i.e., before there

were three eggs in the nest), allowing for the calculation of an accurate expected hatch date

Refer to Table 4-1 - Western Snowy Plover Nest Fates for 2014 Breeding Season at GRP.

Biologists were able to assign relatively accurate hatching dates to another 13 nests found after

clutch completion due to recent nest searches in these locations.

Table 4-1. 2014 Breeding Season Western Snowy Plover Nest Fates at GRP

Nests Hatched Failed Fate Unknown Total

Found Before

Completion 15 20 2 37(74%)

Found Completed 7 5 1 13 (26 %)

Total 22 (34%) 25 (50%) 3 (6%) 50

The percentage of successful nests whose eggs hatched in 2014 stayed consistent with

44 percent hatch success in 2013. Refer to Figure 7 - Number of Nests Located and Hatched

between 1995 - 2014 at GRP. In 2014, there were more eggs that hatched as compared to

2013 (54 eggs versus 51 eggs, respectively).

Fifteen nests (30 percent) were laid in the Northern Territory, followed by the Sandspit

(20 percent), the Restored Dunes (17 percent), and 7X Complex (16 percent). The former A

Road did not have any WSPL nests in 2014. Figure 8 - Total Western Snowy Plover Nests by

Location at GRP in 2014 depicts the spatial arrangements of the WSPL nests within the four

monitoring territories.


- ES15 -

Hatch44%

Depredation32%

Abandoned 18%

Unknown Fate6%

Figure 6. Fate of Western Snowy Plover Nests at GRP in 2014


- ES16 -


- ES17 -

Restoration Dunes34%

Northern Territory30%

7x Complex16%

Sand Spit33%

Figure 8. Total Western Snowy Plover Nests by Location at GRP in 2014

4.3 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER NEST DEPREDATION AND FAILURE

In 2014, the most common nest predators were coyotes. A total of 16 confirmed

depredations were identified; six were confirmed coyote, one was confirmed pig, one was

confirmed raccoon, one was confirmed common raven, one was an unknown avian predator

and six were unknown predators. In 2013, common ravens were the primary predator of nests.

In 2014, common ravens were observed at the GRP, but these observations occurred primarily

outside of suitable WSPL nesting habitat. Additional potential WSPL predators (nest and/or

adults, chicks, fledglings) including northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), great-horned owl (Bubo

virginianas), peregrine falcon, merlin (Falco columbarius), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), mountain lion (Puma

concolor), and various gull species (Larus spp.), were observed within suitable WSPL nesting

habitat at GRP throughout the 2014 nesting season; however, no confirmed depredations were

recorded by these species.

Unknown predators were suspected to be avian if it was not windy the previous day

(e.g., potential tracks were not obscured), and there were no mammalian tracks leading up to

the nest. In most instances, any avian predator tracks at the nests were covered by extensive

WSPL tracks following the predation, making it difficult to identify the predator species. Any

predator tracks observed were measured and any conditions of egg remains were documented

to aid in potential predator identification.

Padre’s WSPL biologists coordinate closely with WSPL biologists at sites, as well as the

entire Recovery Unit 5 (San Simeon south to Ventura, California), when necessary. The WSPL

biologists distribute a weekly update including predator sightings to Rancho Guadalupe Park


- ES18 -

USFWS approved WSPL biologists, Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes Wildlife Refuge USFWS

approved WSPL biologists, Oceano ODSVRA, USFWS approved WSPL biologists and United

States Department of Agricultural (USDA Wildlife Services representatives and ODSRVA

predator managers, USFWS representatives, and CDFW representatives. When common

ravens or other potential avian WSPL predators are observed at GRP, ODSVRA USFWS

approved WSPL biologists, USDA Wildlife Services representatives, and ODSVRA predator

managers are notified by phone immediately.

In years past, common ravens were seen on the beach near the estuary flying over the

Sandspit, up through the restoration dunes, and north to the Guadalupe Nipomo Dune Complex

National Wildlife Refuge. In 2014, a pair was observed flying over the beach in March and

tracks were seen near the end of May. Common ravens were observed flying inland of the

beach on one other occasion in July. The WSPL biologists on the Rancho Guadalupe Dunes

Preserve documented multiple sightings of common ravens flying towards GRP throughout the

season (M. Kelly, personal communication, 2013). Common ravens are often found in breeding

pairs and are highly territorial, causing them to remain relatively inconspicuous with only one

pair present in a large territory. A breeding pair can devastate a breeding population of WSPL

over a large area in a short amount of time (Boarman and Heinrich, 1999).

In 2011, 2012, and 2013, nest predation by common ravens at GRP was identified as

the most significant factor limiting the nesting success of WSPL at GRP. The USFWS

Biological Opinion (1-8-03-FC-57) and the USFWS Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan

indicate that the reduction of predation caused by this species provides a benefit to the nesting

success of the WSPL. Terms and Conditions 13 of the USFWS Biological Opinion for the GRP

states: When determined appropriate by the Service-approved biological monitor(s), Unocal

(Chevron EMC) must implement predator control to reduce excessive predation on western

snowy plovers or California red-legged frogs.

To reduce the affects of common raven on the nesting success of the WSPL, Chevron

applied for and was issued a USFWS Migratory Bird Depredation Permit (MB23433B-0) dated

January 7, 2014, to lethally remove 10 common ravens annually. The USFWS Migratory Bird

Depredation Permit allows for the lethal removal through shooting with a shotgun, or trapping

with padded leg-hold or Swedish goshawk traps. To perform these activities, the Chevron has

entered into an informal agreement with the ODSVRA and USDA Wildlife Services to perform

these activities. In 2014, a single confirmed nest depredation by common ravens was observed

and few observations of common ravens in suitable WSPL nesting habitat were recorded;

therefore, no lethal control of common ravens consistent with the USFWS Migratory Bird

Depredation Permit were conducted at GRP in 2014.

High winds did not play a large role in nest failure in 2014 at the GRP. During survey

days, high winds were recorded gusting above 15 to 20 mph on seven different occasions

starting in March and continuing through the latter half of June. Winds were recorded by

biologists during the early mornings when surveys were being conducted. In 2014, many

afternoons became extremely windy and five of the abandoned nests occurred during high wind

events. The three nests with unknown outcomes were discovered after the hatch date without

eggs after high winds. In 2014, peregrines were present but other than the one abandonment,

there were no other negative effects presumably caused by this species.


- ES19 -

In 2014, six nests were depredated by coyotes. The nests were observed with coyote

tracks leading to them and egg fragments and wet yolk were found in the nest bowl, consistent

with a coyote predation. One nest was depredated in the northern territory by pigs. The nest

was observed with multiple pig tracks leading to it. No egg fragments or nest remains were

found. One nest was depredated by a raccoon in the Northern Territory. The nest was found

with raccoon tracks walking up to it and egg fragments and wet yolk in the nest bowl. Refer to

Table 4-2 - Western Snowy Plover Nest Failure at GRP in 2014.

Table 4-2. Western Snowy Plover Nest Failure at GRP in 2014

Cause Number of Failed Nests

Depredated – Raven 1

Depredated – Coyote 6

Depredated - Feral Pig 1

Depredated - Raccoon 1

Depredated - Unknown Avian 1

Depredated - Unknown Predator 6

Abandoned 9

Total 25

4.4 NEST EXCLOSURES

Although nest exclosures have been used at the site in past years, no nest exclosures

were used in 2013 or 2014. The decision was made by the USFWS approved biologist to not

use predator exclosures based on adult WSPL fatalities potentially influenced by the placement

of exclosures in previous years. The decision was made at the beginning of the season to

assess the severity of the predation on WSPL nests before using exclosures. The use of

exclosures was still an option if the USFWS approved biologists deemed it necessary.

In the past, coyotes have approached exclosures and dug under in attempt to

depredate the nest. In some cases, these nests were later abandoned. In one case, the nest

had hatched and the coyote dug under in attempt to reach the chicks. The majority of the nests

that have been keyed into by coyotes have been in the 7X/A6 Areas where the topography is

flatter and open. It is also an area that is easily accessible by the former A Road and is heavily

traveled by coyotes. The WSPL biologists pulled exclosures in this area when the coyotes

began keying into them. In 2014, four of the six nests that were taken by coyote were all near

the 7X/A6 Areas where coyotes have been an issue in the past. Ravens have also been

documented walking up to and circling exclosures with active nests inside at GRP. It is very

likely that the ravens were sitting atop these same exclosures.

In 2011 and 2012, adult WSPL were found dead outside of exclosures. These adult

mortalities were presumably caused by raptors. This event happened at two separate

exclosures in the Restoration Dunes in 2011, and both exclosures were removed that morning.

The dead WSPL were found with coyote tracks around them, but the cause of death was

uncertain. One of the nests continued to be incubated and later hatched. The second nest


- ES20 -

associated with the adult mortality was not attended to and was deemed abandoned. The eggs

were eventually eaten by a coyote. In 2012, a common raven sign (i.e., tracks) was also

observed adjacent to nest exclosures

Although nest exclosures have been shown to increase WSPL nest hatching success,

they pose potential hazards to adult WSPL. The scientific literature and USFWS approved

biologists’ professional experience with nest exclosures indicate that small raptors including

American kestrel (Falco sparvensis) and merlin (Falco columbarius) may correlate the presence

of exclosures with the presence of all life stages of WSPL, and may use this association to

serially depredate WSPL. On the GRP Site specifically, peregrine falcons are present the

majority of the WSPL breeding season. Therefore, due to the potential risk that exclosures pose

to adult WSPL, GRP biologists elected not to exclose any WSPL nests in 2013 or 2104.

Throughout the range of the WSPL, many WSPL biologists are focusing their efforts on the

removal of potential predators, and are working toward the elimination of exclosures due to the

potential threats this method poses to the adult WSPL.

4.5 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER EGGS AND CHICKS

The 50 recorded nests contained 127 eggs of which 54 hatched and 44 eggs were taken

by predators. Of the remaining 29 eggs, 16 were abandoned, nine had unknown fates, one

partially hatched, and three were non-viable

The biologists observed few chicks and juveniles early in the season March and April at

GRP. Chicks are not actively sought by the biologists during surveys to avoid separating

attending adult birds from their chicks. Consequently, the number of chicks observed is

presumed to be a conservative estimate. As has been observed in past years, older chicks and

juveniles were more commonly observed later in the 2014 season.

4.6 NEWLY RESTORED DISTURBANCE AREAS WITHIN WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER

CRITICAL HABITAT

Environmental regulatory agency-approved remediation activities within WSPL breeding

habitat are scheduled outside of the WSPL nesting season. In the first quarter of 2014, a total of

1.28 acres of WSPL critical habitat was disturbed and restored at the A-8 pad, A-6 West, and

the A road. Historically, the A8 Area has not had suitable WSPL nesting habitat and nests have

not been found in that area. Following excavation activities of these sites, restoration efforts

included seeding and installation of sand fence for sand stabilization. Additionally, straw plugs

were added to A6 West and the A Road.

From 2001 through 2014, WSPL utilized the Restoration Dunes Area for nesting. In

2001 these dunes were restored to successful suitable WSPL breeding habitat. In 2014, 17

nests were placed on these dunes and an additional four within the A6 Area, which was

restored to suitable WSPL habitat in 2013. Of the 21 nests in these areas, 10 hatched

successfully (48 percent), one nest was taken by a coyote, two to unknown predators, five were

abandoned, and one was lost to an unknown avian predator. When compared to 2013, this is a

five percent decrease in the proportion of nests hatched in the Restoration Dunes. In 2014, the

main cause for nest loss was abandonment and unknown predator takes after strong winds.


- ES21 -

4.7 TRESSPASS INCIDENTS WITHIN WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER HABITAT

In 2014, there were two instances where human trespassers’ footprints were observed in

suitable WSPL habitat at GRP. In one instance, the human trespassers tracks were observed

walking through the Restored Dunes possibly collecting drift wood. No nests were adversely

affected by these visitors. Most trespassers enter the property from the south at the Rancho

Guadalupe Dunes County Park, usually crossing the Sandspit to the estuary edge and then the

southern dunes. The biologists at the Rancho Guadalupe Dunes County Park actively keep

trespassers out of the WSPL habitat by educating visitors before they arrive on the beach and

contacting them when in WSPL habitat.

At the end of March 2014 there was a search and rescue operation being conducted on

the Rancho Guadalupe Dunes County Park. The Coast Guard was involved along with

California State Park personnel who accessed the County beach from ODSVRA. The vehicles

drove in the wet sand along GRP beach. Low flying helicopters and ocean vessels were also

used in the search and rescue throughout the day. No WSPL or nests were affected by the

activity on the beach.

On the weekend of October 25, 2014, a full size pickup truck drove from the north down

the beach and entered the dunes at the A5A Area. The tracks show the truck had driven up and

down the former A Road where it may have gotten stuck around the A6/7X Area before exiting

near the 5X Area. The truck drove through newly restored areas but not over any sensitive

plants. The route of the tire tracks were recorded by Padre staff the following workday, no

WSPL were found in the area and after a windy few days, the tracks were no longer visible.


- ES22 -

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 MONITORING STUDY CONCLUSIONS

The WSPL nests found at the GRP Site in 2014 (n=50) was higher than the number of

nests found in 2013 (n=45) and 2012 (n=40). The percentage of nests whose eggs hatched in

2014 (44 percent) stayed consistent with 2013 percentages. In 2014, there were more eggs

that hatched as compared to 2013 (54 eggs versus 51 eggs, respectively). In 2014, 32 percent

of the nests were depredated as compared to 2013 when42 percent were depredated. In 2014,

coyotes and other unknown predators were the main cause of nest predation. Another factor in

2014 that contributed to the failure of nests and eggs was the abandonment of nests by the

adult WSPL. High tides did not contribute to nest failure in 2014.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

During the 2015 WSPL nesting season, the GRP USFWS-approved biologists plan to

work with ODSVRA representatives and USDA Wildlife Services representatives to lethally

control common ravens, if warranted. These activities will be performed in compliance with

project-specific USFWS Migratory Bird Depredation Permit (MB23433B-0) to improve WSPL

nesting success. The GRP USFWS-approved biologists will coordinate with representatives

from Rancho Guadalupe Park, Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes Wildlife Refuge, and ODSVRA

throughout the 2015 season regarding the common ravens activity in WSPL habitat.

If the WSPL biologists deem it necessary, due to loss of WSPL nests or individuals,

USDA Wildlife Services may be called to assist in the lethal removal of common ravens at GRP.

USDA Wildlife Services will be working with ODSVRA throughout the season; however, since

common ravens are capable of causing harm to multiple WSPL beaches; it is beneficial to all

neighboring sites for USDA Wildlife Services to support other beaches when available.

If nest exclosures are used in 2015, they will be embedded deep into the sand to deter

possible effects caused by coyotes. Communication should continue between the neighboring

sites regarding predators and various management strategies implemented to increase snowy

WSPL nesting success.

In 2015, if eggs fail to hatch due to abandonment or unviability, they will be collected and

transported to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History (SBMNH) for the Museum’s

collection. Any deceased WSPL will be reported immediately to USFWS and either sent to

SBMNH or CAHFS depending on USFWS recommendation.

To ensure that site characterization, oil field abandonment, remediation, infrastructure

removal, or other project-related activities don’t significantly affect the WSPL or suitable WSPL

nesting habitat at GRP, monitoring ativities in 2015 shall be consistent with past WSPL nesting

seasons. The intent of the continued effort at GRP is to monitor the status of all life stages of

WSPL, as well as to adaptively manage the population and habitat to support productivity of the

species.

Prior to the 2015 season, all signs should be checked for wear and replaced if needed.

Signs present along the beach should continue to be outfitted with Nixalite© bird spikes to

discourage perching from any raptors.


- ES23 -

--o--


- ES24 -

6.0 REFERENCES

Boarman, W.I. and Heinrich, B. 1999. Common Raven (Corvus corax). The Birds of North

America Online. (A. Poole, Ed.) Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/

bna/species/476doi:10.2173/bna.476

Fahy, K. 2008. The Effect of Habitat Choice, Density and Distribution on Breeding Western

Snowy Plovers. A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology.

Personal communications

Greenwald, Glen, Refuge manager and Monitor at Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Preserve and

Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge in 2014. Frequent personal

communication regarding depredations by unknown avian predators at Rancho

Guadalupe Dunes Preserve and Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge.

Little, Stephanie, Environmental Scientist at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area

(ODSVRA). Snowy plover monitor at the Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Preserve in 2014.

Frequent personal communication regarding nest depredation and predator sightings on

ODSVRA and Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Preserve.

Kelly, Melissa, Assistant Naturalist at Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Preserve in 2014. Personal

communication regarding nest depredations and predator sightings on the Preserve.

Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area State Park in 2014. Frequent personal

communication with various plover biologists and USDA Wildlife service trappers

regarding depredations within the State park.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/%20bna/species/476doi:10.2173/bna.476

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/%20bna/species/476doi:10.2173/bna.476


APPENDIX A

Table A-1: Survey Dates and Western Snowy Plover Numbers in 2014

Table A-2: Color Banded Western Snowy Plovers Recorded in 2014

Table A-3: Western Snowy Plover Nests Located in 2014

Table A-4: Predator Sightings and Other Possible Threats During Western Snowy Plover Surveys in 2014

APPENDIX B

CAHFS Necropsy Final Report


Table A-1. Survey Dates and Western Snowy Plover Numbers in 2014

Survey Date Survey Crew Total # of plovers

3/3/14 KP, AB 2

3/5/14 JM, AB 2

3/6/14 KP, SS 1

3/10/14 KP, KG 11

3/12/14 KP, KG 12

3/14/14 KP, SS 11

3/17/14 KP, AB, RD 9

3/19/14 KP, KG 12

3/21/14 KP, SS, RZ, 11

3/24/14 KP, AB 20

3/26/14 KP, AB, RD 10

3/28/14 KP, SS 10

3/31/14 KP, AB 14

4/2/14 KP, SS, AB, RD 18

4/4/14 KP, SS 27

4/7/14 KP, KG, RD 19

4/9/14 KP, JM, RD 14

4/11/14 KP, SS 10

4/14/14 KP, JK, KG,

RD, RZ 13

4/16/14 KP, KG 14

4/18/14 SS, AB 7

4/21/14 KP, KG 19

4/23/14 KP, KG 19

4/25/14 KP, SS 11

4/28/14 KP, KG 23

4/30/14 KP, KG, RD 15

5/2/14 KP, SS 18

5/5/14 KP, KG 27

5/7/14 KP, KG 27

5/9/14 KP, SS 17

5/12/14 KP, JM 28

5/14/14 KP, SS 21

5/16/14 KP, SS 32

5/19/14 KP, JM 29

5/21/14 KP, SS, RD, EL 24

5/23/14 KP, SS 24

5/27/14 KP, SS 15

5/28/14 KP, JM 15

5/30/14 KP, SS 15

6/2/14 JM, KG 17

6/4/14 KP, SS 19

6/6/14 KP, SS 18

6/9/14 KP, JM 20


Survey Date Survey Crew Total # of plovers

6/11/14 KP, KG, RD 17

6/13/14 KP, KG 17

6/16/14 KP, KG 22

6/18/14 KP, KG 15

6/20/14 KP, KW 19

6/23/14 KP, JM 23

6/25/14 KP, SS 10

6/27/14 KP, SS 20

6/30/14 KP, JM 20

7/2/14 KP, KW 19

7/3/14 KP, AB 11

7/7/14 KP, JM 8

7/9/14 KP, JM 8

7/11/14 KP SS 7

7/14/14 KP, JM, KG 7

7/16/14 KP, KG, RD 20

7/18/14 KP, SS 14

7/21/14 KP, KG 10

7/23/14 SS, JM 3

7/25/14 KP, SS 10

7/28/14 KG, AB 23

7/30/14 KG, AB 13

8/1/14 KG, AB 3

8/4/14 KP, KG 5

8/6/14 KP, KG 4

8/8/14 KP, SS 10

8/11/14 KP, AB 4

8/13/14 KP, KG 7

8/15/14 KP, SS 8

8/18/14 KP, KG 20

8/20/14 KP, KG 13

8/21/14 KP, KW 11

8/25/14 KP, JK 20

8/27/14 KP, KG 23

8/28/14 KP, KW 18

9/2/14 KP, JK 14

9/3/14 KP, MH 16

9/4/14 KP, JL 19

9/8/14 KP, KG 8

9/10/14 KG, AB 11

9/11/14 KP, JK 13

9/15/14 KP, JK 22

Average number of western snowy plovers observed

15


Table A-2. Color Banded Western Snowy Plovers Recorded in 2014

Left Bands

Bands Right Sex Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

Total times seen

Confirmed Nesting at

GRP Band site

(year banded)

AB AB F 1 1

Marina State Beach,

Monterey (2011)

AP GR 2 2 4

Monterey Bay Aquarium

(2014)

AR BW M 1 1

Marina State Beach,

Monterey (2013)

AR WW F 1 1 Reservation Road (2013)

BB GY M 2 4 5 2 4 3 20 3 nests ODSVRA

(2006)

BB RY M 5 5 3 5 18 ODSVRA

(2010)

BB YW F 2 2 ODSVRA

(2010 or 2013)

BWB V J 1 1 Oregon (2014)

BY RR M 8 8 Salinas (2011)

GA AG M 2 1 3 ODSVRA (2012

or 2013)

GA WB M 1 1 2 ODSVRA

(2012 or 2013)

GA YG 1 1 ODSVRA

(2011 or 2013)

GA YR J 1 1 ODSVRA

(2014)

GG PG M 1 1 ODSVRA

GG BB F 2 2 1 nest

ODSVRA (2005, 2010 or

2013)

GG AB M 1 1 ODSVRA

(2007)

GG GR M 2 2 ODSVRA

(2011 or 2013)

GG YG F 5 4 5 1 3 18 1 nest ODSVRA

(2011 or 2013)

GG LY F 4 7 3 2 6 22 2 nests ODSVRA

(2012)

GG RY F 4 4 ODSVRA

(2012)

GG OG M 5 7 2 1 15 1 nest ODSVRA

(2013)

GG VG J 1 1 ODSVRA

(2014)

gN RW F 2 1 3 6 Oregon

NO BY F 1 1 Vandenberg

(2013)

NR PR F 2 2 Vandenberg

(2012)

OB AA J 2 2 Pajaro Spit

(2014)


Left Bands

Bands Right Sex Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept

Total times seen

Confirmed Nesting at

GRP Band site

(year banded)

OG OW J 1 1 Salinas (2014)

OO WR J 1 1 Pajaro Spit

(2014)

OY BB F 1 1 Sunset State Beach (2005)

PG RY J 1 1 ODSVRA

(2014)

PG GY J 1 1 ODSVRA

(2014)

PG AB M 3 1 1 5 1 nest ODSVRA

(2012)

PG GG F 1 1 ODSVRA

(2012 or 2013)

PG PG J 1 1 ODSVRA

(2014)

PV GG J 1 1 ODSVRA

(2014)

PV BW J 1 1 ODSVRA

(2014)

RG AB M 1 1 Oregon

RR PR F 1 1 ODSVRA

(2008)

RR WG M 3 2 4 6 2 1 18 ODSVRA

(2012)

V BR 2 2 ODSVRA

VG VW M 5 8 7 3 23 2 nests

ODSVRA (2008, 2011,

2013

VG GY M 2 1 3 ODSVRA

(2013)

VG PY J 4 4 ODSVRA

(2014)

VV BB M 1 1 2 ODSVRA

(2011 or 2013)

VW BB F 1 2 3 ODSVRA

(2010 or 2013)

WG RR 1 1 Fort Ord (2014)

WG GY 1 1 Salinas NWR

(2014)

Y WRW M 1 4 5 VAFB (2013) Color band codes: A=aqua, B= blue, G= green, K=black L-lime, N=brown, O=orange P=pink, R=red, V=violet, W=white, Y=yellow


Table A-3. Western Snowy Plover Nests Located in 2014

Nest # Date Initial #

eggs

Projected Hatch date

End Fate Location Notes

KKP01 3/21/14 1 4.23.14 4.28.14 Unknown

fate Sand spit, north of the first sign.

Unbanded pair. No eggs were seen, so windy, no chicks seen. Adults were acting like chicks were nearby.

AJB02 3/24/14 1 4.23.14 4.12.14 Fail Sand spit, south of the first sign. Unknown predator. No tracks, heavy rain, some yolk and small

shell.

AJB03 3.26.14 3 4.21.14 4.14.14 Fail Northern Territory: far east in

the dunes. Depredated by pigs.

KKP04 3.31.14 1 5.1.14 5.2.14 Hatch 7X: south of the 7X trail BB:GY Female

3 chicks hatched, pips seen.

AJB05 3.31.14 2 5.1.14 5.2.14 Hatch Northern Territory: far north,

near large well.

GG:LY female and PG:AB male All three hatched, pips seen.

AJB06 3.31.14 2 4.9.14 Fail Restored Dunes: between

markers 17 and 18. Unbanded pair. Lost one egg, unknown. Abandoned one egg.

Last egg eaten by coyote.

SMS07 4.4.14 3 5.1.14 4.30.14 Hatch Restored Dunes: between

markers 12 and 13. Unbanded pair, all three eggs hatched, chicks seen.

SMS08 4.4.14 1 4.16.14 Fail Restored Dunes: West of

marker 8. VG:GY Male near nest, became half buried after high winds.

Abandoned

KKP09 4.9.14 1 5.11.14 5.12.14 Hatch Sand spit:: in line with the

southern property boundary. Chicks seen on the beach after hatch.

JFM10 4.11.14 1 4.16.14 Fail 7X: gravel area. Abandoned after high winds; egg was completely buried.

Dropped Egg

4.11.14 1 Restored Dunes: Gravel area

north of perimeter fence. Tracks around egg, not in nest bowl.

KLG12 4.14.14 3 5.11.14 5.9.14 Hatch Northern Territory: North of the

sign and pole. One chick just hatched in nest bowl with 2 eggs left.

AJB13 4.18.14 1 5.20.14 5.23.14 Hatch Restored Dunes: South of

marker 7. VG:VW Male One egg buried a few weeks before hatching.

Hatched 2 eggs.

KLG14 4.21.14 1 5.25.14 5.27.14 Hatch Restoration Dunes: East of

marker 12 in gravel. Hatch 2 eggs, one partial hatch

KLG15 4.21.14 3 5.18.14 5.16.14 Hatch Restoration Dunes: East of

marker 7 in gravel. GG:YG female, VG:VW Male. Hatch all 3 eggs.

KKP16 4.23.14 3 5.20.14 5.16.14 Hatch Restoration Dunes: North of

marker 23. 2 chicks hatched and one egg pipped.




eggs



Dropped Egg

4.25.14 1 Northern Territory: on the beach, west of nest 05.

KLG17 4.30.14 2 5.4.14 Hatch Sand spit: Just south of the

fence line. Pips found in the nest bowl

KLG18 5.5.14 1 6.1.14 5.19.14 Fail 7X: Far south in open sand. Unknown predator. Yolk, shell no tracks.

SMS19 5.9.14 1 5.12.14 Fail Northern Territory: Far north in

back dunes. Found at one egg on Friday. After a very windy weekend, the

egg was found 80% buried on Monday.

SMS20 5.16.14 1 6.2.14 Fail Northern Territory: Just north of

8X Possibly a banded male. Unknown predator. Lots of tracks near

the nest, coyote, raccoon, and pig.

KKP21 5.19.14 1 5.27.14 Fail Sand spit:: Between the first

and second sign. Raven tracks, no egg shell or yolk.

SMS22 5.23.14 2 6.2.14 Fail Restored Dunes: West of

marker 12.

Fail to an unknown predator. No predator tracks at the nest. No egg shell or yolk. Two days later saw large bird possibly raven

tracks in area.

KKP23 5.23.14 1 6.26.14 6.25.14 Hatch Restored Dunes: south east of

marker 4. All three chicks were seen in the nest bowl. No adults were near.

KKP24 5.23.14 1 6.29.14 6.30.14 Hatch Northern Territory: South of the

first sign after 8X

GG:OG male. After a very windy weekend, the nest was found with no sign of hatch or fail. GG:OG was seen later in week a

chick.

SMS25 6.4.14 1 7.5.14 7.7.14 Hatch Northern Territory: North of the

last sign. Pip in the nest bowl with 2 remaining eggs.

KKP26 6.4.14 2 7.3.14 6.9.14 Fail Northern Territory: Close to the northern boundary in the back

dunes.

Found with pig and coyote tracks all around. Egg yolk and shell in area.

KKP27 6.9.14 1 7.10.14 7.11.14 Fail Sand spit: Between the

perimeter and fence and first sign.

Abandoned after a windy weekend, one egg got buried. PEFA has been sitting near nest. Eggs were cold.

KKP28 6.9.14 1 7.10.14 6.30.14 Fail Restored Dunes: In the gravel

piles north of the perimeter fence

After a very windy weekend, the nest was gone with no sign of predators.

KKP29 6.11.14 1 7.13.14 7.11.14 Hatch Restored Dunes: mid beach

west of marker 9. Pips found in nest bowl. All 3 eggs hatched.

KKP30 6.13.14 3 7.10.14 6.27.14 Unk Fate Northern Territory: In the high

tide zone, one sign south of the property line.

Was found with no eggs, pips, shell, yolk or tracks after a windy day.




eggs



KLG31 6.16.14 3 7.13.14 6.20.14 Fail 7X: North of 7x road, far back

dune. Coyote tracks up to nest and large broken shell in nest bowl.

JFM32 6.23.14 2 6.27.14 Unk Fate Restored Dunes: Between marker 7 and 8. Low in the

habitat.

This nest was found at 2 eggs but was very decorated and had a bird doing broken wing. Was found with no eggs, pips, shell, yolk

or tracks after a windy day.

SMS33 6.25.14 1 7.7.14 Fail Restored Dunes: North west of

marker 23.

Abandoned after very high winds, one egg rolled out of nest bowl, tracks were near. One week later saw another egg ¾

buried.

KKP34 6.27.14 1 7.29.14 7.21.14 Fail Northern Territory: North of 8x Coyote tracks all around nest. Yolk in nest bowl.

KKP35 6.27.14 2 7.27.14 7.28.14 Hatch Northern Territory: Just north of

8x west of the sand fences. 3 pips found in nest bowl.

KKP36 6.30.14 1 7.3.14 Fail Restored dunes: Just north east

of marker 23. A couple light avian tracks seen next to the nest bowl. No egg

yolk or shell found. Unknown Avian.

JFM37 6.30.14 1 7.2.14 Fail 7x: A6 west of the two

monitoring wells. BB:GY male. Found with coyote tracks all around and egg yolk in

nest bowl.

KKP38 7.2.14 1 7.7.14 Fail Restored Dunes: West of

marker 19 lower in the habitat. Found at one egg after a windy weekend. Some tracks around

egg, never went to two eggs.

KKP39 7.7.14 1 8.4.14 8.4.14 Hatch 7x: 2 feet north from 7x road BB:GY Male. Hatch all 3 eggs.

KKP40 7.7.14 3 8.3.14 7.16.14 Hatch Northern Territory: South of the

sign and pole. One chick and two eggs hatching.

KKP41 7.7.14 3 8.3.14 8.4.14 Hatch Restored Dunes: Directly west

of marker 10. Hatch3 eggs

KKP42 7.7.14 2 8.3.14 7.21.14 Fail Sand spit: North of the second

sign facing the beach. Coyote tracks up to nest. Shell and yolk near.

JFM43 7.9.14 1 4.14.14 Fail Northern Territory: north of the large well lower in the shells.

Found at one egg. Stayed at one egg, no tracks or nest bowl.

KKP44 7.11.14 2 8.10.14 8.11.14 Hatch Sand spit: south of the

perimeter fence, lower in habitat surrounded by shells.

Found 3 pips in nest bowl.

KKP45 7.11.14 1 7.14.14 Fail Restored Dunes: North of

marker 8. Found at one egg. Stayed at one egg, no tracks or nest bowl.




eggs



KKP46 7.16.14 3 8.12.14 7.28.14 Fail Sand spit: North of the southern boundary signs, low in habitat in

shells. Coyote Depredation; tracks and egg yolk seen.

KKP47 7.16.14 2 7.18.14 Hatch Sand spit: South of the

perimeter fence, low in habitat in shells.

Two chicks near nest.

KKP48 7.16.14 2 8.14.14 8.6.14 Fail Northern Territory: A few feet

south of the refuge fence. Raccoon tracks up to nest and fail

KKP49 7.18.14 3 8.17.14 7.28.14 Fail 7X: On 8X dune below one of

the sand fences. Coyote Depredation; tracks and egg yolk seen.

KLG50 7.18.14 2 8.8.14 Hatch Northern territory: North of the

large well, east of the next sign. Back dunes.

Pips were found in the nest bowl.

Color band codes: A=aqua, B= blue, G= green, K=black L-lime, N=brown, O=orange P=pink, R=red, V=violet, W=white, Y=yellow Location territories:


Table A-4. Predator Sightings and Other Possible

Threats During Western Snowy Plover Surveys, 2014

Predator March Apr May Jun Jul Aug Total

Northern harrier 2 0 1 0 0 1 4

Red-tailed hawk 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Peregrine falcon 0 4 1 2 4 3 14

Gull, Coyote, and Raccoon Tracks from these potential predators are found throughout Snowy Plover nesting habitat

Common raven

2 0 1 0 2 0 5

American kestrel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Skunk (tracks) 0 0 0 0 (1) 0 1

Feral pig Tracks from these potential predators are found throughout Snowy Plover nesting habitat

Burrowing owl 2 2

Merlin 1 1

Mountain lion (tracks)1

(1) (1) 2

Total 7 5 5 2 7 4 30

1 Mountain lion tracks were observed walking the length of the former A road in the beginning of the season.

2014 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER MONITORING REPORT …...CAHFS California Animal Health and Food Safety...

Documents

Transcript of 2014 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER MONITORING REPORT …...CAHFS California Animal Health and Food Safety...